From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36818) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDwdg-0001On-4U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:15:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDwdW-0005pe-Qv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:15:24 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49895) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VDwdW-0005pT-J1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:15:14 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7QDFCEu022738 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:15:13 -0400 Message-ID: <521B54DE.7090202@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:15:10 +0200 From: Max Reitz MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1377522260-16676-1-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> <1377522260-16676-5-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1377522260-16676-5-git-send-email-mreitz@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/5] qcow2: Check allocations in qcow2_check List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Kevin Wolf , Stefan Hajnoczi Hi, On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 15:04 +0200, Max Reitz wrote: > Adds a new function checking for overlapping cluster allocations. > Furthermore, qcow2_check now marks the image as consistent if no > corruptions have been found. > > Signed-off-by: Max Reitz Such overlappings are often (if not always) found by the refcount checks as well. By increasing the refcount of the clusters affected and therefore enforcing COW, the collision is basically fixed as well without requiring this new function. Thus I'm not sure whether this new function is actually necessary since the existing refcount check seems to cover all its functionality already. But, well, I thought it couldn't hurt proposing this function at least. ;-) Kind regards, Max